System and method for multi level transcript quality checking

ABSTRACT

Methods and systems for multi level quality checking of transcripts are disclosed. The method includes the steps of searching subsets of metadata associated with the transcripts, identifying a group of transcripts having at least one particular subset of metadata, selecting a number of transcripts from the group of identified transcripts corresponding to a predetermined percentage, identifying a group of correctionists having a proper set of characteristics to correct the selected transcripts by matching the identified subsets of metadata associated with the transcripts with characteristics of correctionists, providing the transcripts and any voice files from which the transcripts derive to the selected correctionists, and, following correction, updating the subsets of metadata associated with the transcripts to include subsets of metadata pertaining to the voice files from which the transcripts were derived, any transcriptionist who transcribed the transcripts, or any correctionist who corrected the transcripts.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims the benefit under 35 U.S.C. §120, as acontinuation, of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/133,583, entitled “SYSTEMAND METHOD FOR MULTI LEVEL TRANSCRIPT QUALITY CHECKING” filed on May 20,2005, which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to a system and method for multilevel quality checking of transcripts of voice files. Although anenvisioned application for the present invention is for thetranscription and quality assurance of medical reports, it will beappreciated that the application of the present invention is not limitedto the field of medicine.

In a typical hospital setting, a doctor creates a voice file bydictating a medical report on to a hospital's database. The voice fileis then transcribed by a transcriptionist. The transcriptionist listensto a playback of the voice file and types a transcript of the voice fileas playback proceeds. Alternately, speech recognition software may firstoperate on the voice file before transcription; the transcriptionist isthen provided with the output of the speech recognition software as wellas the voice file and listens to a playback of the voice file whilemaking corrections to the output of the speech recognition software. Ineither event, the result of transcription is a transcript of the voicefile.

To be certain that the transcription of the voice file was accurate,quality assurance (QA) is required. The quality assurance of transcriptsis done by correctionists. Typically, a correctionist listens to aplayback of the voice file while proofreading the correspondingtranscript and corrects any discrepancies between the playback and thetranscript.

Today's situation concerning the quality assurance of transcripts ofrecorded voice generally presents one of two undesirable choices. Thefirst possibility is to perform the all of the QA work in the UnitedStates using an organization's in-house QA department or outsourcing toa US-based transcription company. Advantageously, the expected qualityof such an American transcription is high; 96% correctness is anaccepted industry norm. Additionally, US-based transcriptionistscommonly possess a high degree of skill and commitment to accomplishinghighly accurate QA work. A principal drawback to performing QA oftranscripts in the United States is expense. Typically, US-basedtranscription companies charge fifteen cents per line for transcriptionand QA services.

The alternative to performing QA work on transcripts in the US is tohave the QA work done offshore in countries with large numbers of highlyeducated English-speaking people. Such countries include India, thePhilippines, and Trinidad, among others. A considerable advantage tooffshore QA work is the lower labor cost in offshore countries. InIndia, for example, the cost of transcription is typically one-half ofone cent per line plus approximately five or six cents per line forquality assurance—a total savings of about 60% compared to the cost ofdomestic QA. Moreover, today's technology ensures that moving QA workoffshore is facile, safe, and inexpensive—internet bandwidth costs havebecome increasingly less expensive and secure, encrypted connectionshave become the norm. A principal drawback to offshore QA work is itsperceived low reputation for quality. The result of an organization'slow opinion of offshore QA work is low confidence in the accuracy of anoffshore quality assured transcript which may outweigh the cost benefitof moving the QA work offshore. It is contemplated that a workflowutilizing several levels of quality assurance blending both offshore anddomestic QA resources will maximize the advantages and minimize thedrawbacks of domestic and offshore QA work. Lower level QA work may becarried out offshore with the attendant benefit of cost savings. Witheach level of QA, the level of confidence in the accuracy of transcriptswill increase depending on the skill level of the person performing theQA work. As the level of confidence increases, an increasingly smallernumber of transcripts will require further QA work to achieve anacceptable confidence level. High-level or top-level work may then beperformed either domestically or in a higher-cost offshore country on amodest sample of transcripts with the attendant benefit of highaccuracy. Such a method will have the benefit of producing transcriptsof similar accuracy to wholly domestic transcripts at a lower cost.

Therefore, an object of the present invention is to provide a method andsystem of multi level quality checking of transcripts with high accuracyat reduced cost. Another object of the present invention is to provide amethod and system for facilitating the transcription of voice filesprior to subjecting the transcripts of the voice files to a multi leveltranscript checking process.

These and other objects will be apparent to those skilled in the art.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

In a first aspect, the present invention includes a method for assuringthe quality, at multiple levels, of transcripts of voice files.Specifically, the present invention is directed towards a method formulti level quality checking of transcripts of voice files having thesteps of identifying subsets of metadata associated with thetranscripts, identifying a group of transcripts having one or moreparticular subset(s) of metadata, referencing a predetermined percentageof the group of identified transcripts that will be corrected, selectinga number of transcripts from among the group of identified transcriptscorresponding to the percentage, identifying a group of correctionistshaving a proper set of characteristics to correct the selectedtranscripts by matching the identified subsets of metadata associatedwith the transcripts with characteristics of correctionists andselecting one or more correctionists from the group of propercorrectionists to correct the transcripts, providing the transcripts andany voice files from which the transcripts derive to the selectedcorrectionists, and, following correction, updating the subsets ofmetadata associated with the transcripts to include subsets of metadatapertaining to the voice files from which the transcripts were derived,any transcriptionist who transcribed the transcripts, or anycorrectionist who corrected the transcripts. In a second aspect, thepresent invention includes an optional method for facilitating thetranscription of voice files prior to subjecting the transcriptsderiving from those voice files to the multi level transcript checkingmethod. Specifically, the present invention is optionally directed to amethod for facilitating the transcription of voice files for laterquality assurance having the steps of identifying subsets of metadataassociated with voice files, identifying a group of voice files having aparticular subset of metadata, identifying a group of transcriptionistshaving a proper set of characteristics to transcribe the identifiedgroup of voice files by matching the identified subsets of metadataassociated with the voice files with characteristics oftranscriptionists and selecting one or more transcriptionists from amongthe group of proper transcriptionists to transcribe the voice files,providing the voice files to the selected transcriptionists, and,following transcription, writing subsets of metadata to be associatedwith the resultant transcripts of the voice files to include subsets ofmetadata pertaining to the voice files or the transcriptionist whotranscribed the voice files.

In a third aspect, the present invention includes a computer system forimplementing the methods. Specifically, the present invention isdirected to a computer system having a computer with a computer storagemedium and a computer program code mechanism embedded in the computerstorage medium for causing a computer to identify subsets of metadataassociated with voice files or transcripts of voice files, selecttranscriptionists or correctionists to operate on the voice files or thetranscripts based on workflow rules, and provide voice files ortranscripts via an internet connection to a web-based trans-net clientfor transcription or a web-based QA client for correction; a database inelectronic communication with the computer code mechanism containingstored voice files or transcripts of the voice files, characteristics oftranscriptionists or correctionists, and the workflow rules includingdefinitions of the subsets of metadata associated with the voice filesor the transcripts; and a web-based quality assurance client operable toallow a correctionist via an internet connection to access the voicefiles and corresponding transcripts of the voice files stored on thedatabase for correction.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

While the specification concludes with claims particularly pointing outand distinctly claiming the present invention, it is believed the samewill be better understood from the following description taken inconjunction with the accompanying drawings, which illustrate, in anon-limiting fashion, the best mode presently contemplated for carryingout the present invention, and in which like reference numeralsdesignate like parts throughout the Figures, wherein:

FIG. 1 is schematic illustration of a computer system for use withimplementing the method of multi level quality transcript checking ofthe present invention;

FIG. 2 is a diagram of the multi level quality checking hierarchy of thepresent invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention will now be described more fully as it applies toall embodiments. The present invention relates to a method of checking,at several levels, transcripts of voice files. The present inventionalso relates to system for implementing the method of multi levelquality checking. The system of the present invention is capable ofoperating on conventional computer systems and computerized devices, anexample of which is provided below as it relates to the preferredembodiment. The method is carried out by first searching subsets ofmetadata associated with transcripts of voice files residing on adatabase. A group of transcripts having at least one particular subsetof metadata associated with the transcripts is identified. Apredetermined percentage of the group of identified transcripts thatwill be corrected is referenced. A number of transcripts from among thegroup of identified transcripts corresponding to the predeterminedpercentage are selected. A group of correctionists having a proper setof characteristics to correct the selected transcripts is identified bymatching the identified subsets of metadata associated with thetranscripts with characteristics of correctionists. The transcripts andany voice files from which the transcripts derive are provided to theselected correctionists via an internet connection. Followingcorrection, the subsets of metadata associated with the transcripts areupdated to include subsets of metadata pertaining to the voice filesfrom which the transcripts were derived, any transcriptionist whotranscribed the transcripts, or any correctionist who corrected thetranscripts. A computer system for use with implementing the method alsois described.

The present invention will now be described more fully with reference tothe Figures in which an embodiment of the present invention is shown.The subject matter of this disclosure may, however, be embodied in manydifferent forms and should not be construed as being limited to theembodiment set forth herein.

Referring now to the drawings, wherein like reference numerals designateidentical or corresponding parts throughout the several views, FIG. 1 isa schematic illustration of a computer system 10 for use withimplementing a method multi level quality checking of the presentinvention. A computer 15 electronically connected to a database 17 andhaving an internet connection 20 implements the method of the presentinvention. The computer 15 houses a computer storage medium and acomputer program code mechanism embedded in the computer storage mediumfor causing the computer 15 to identify subsets of metadata associatedwith a voice file or the corresponding transcript and assign the voicefile or the transcript to a transcriptionist through a web-basedtrans-net client 25 (if there is no corresponding transcript) or acorrectionist through a web-based QA client 30 (if there is acorresponding transcript). In electronic communication with the computercode mechanism is a database 17 containing workflow rules, stored voicefiles or transcripts, and characteristics of transcriptionists orcorrectionists. Transcriptionists may access voice files stored on thedatabase 17 from any location through the web-based trans-net client 25,which connects to the computer 15 via an internet connection 20.Correctionists may access assigned voice files and the correspondingtranscripts of those voice files stored on the database 17 from anylocation through the web-based QA client 30, which connects to thecomputer 15 via an internet connection 20. It is contemplated that theinternet connection 20 may be through the Internet or another internetcommunications network such as a local area network or a corporateintranet.

As stated above, the system 10 includes at least one computer storagemedium. Examples of computer storage media are compact discs, harddisks, floppy disks, tape, magneto-optical disks, PROMs (EPROM, EEPROM,Flash EPROM), DRAM, SRAM, SDRAM, and the like.

With reference to FIG. 2, a hierarchy of multi level quality assurance50 is shown for implementation with computer system 10. The hierarchy 50is pyramid-shaped and is comprised of levels that become narrower as thelevel increases. Each level within the hierarchy encompasses a range ofconfidence factors possessed by transcriptionists or correctionists.Higher levels in the workflow pyramid indicate increasing confidence inthe accuracy of transcripts in those levels due to the increasing skilllevel of transcriptionists or correctionists of those levels. Also, thedecreasing base width of each higher level in the pyramid represents thelower number of voice file transcripts in higher levels that requirehigher-level QA checking.

The base level, transcription level 55, is an optional feature of thesystem and represents the transcription of a voice file by atranscriptionist. Based on the skill of the transcriptionist performingthe transcription, transcripts created in the transcription level 55 areplaced in Level 1 QA 60 or higher.

Level 1 QA 60 indicates the level with the lowest range of confidencefactors, such as those assigned to the lowest-skilled transcriptionistsor correctionists. Level 2 QA 65 and higher levels represent theincreasing confidence factors possessed by increasingly skilledtranscriptionists or correctionists. It is contemplated that the higherskill possessed by increasingly experienced transcriptionists orcorrectionists allows the size of the sample of transcripts in thepyramidal hierarchy that require further QA to become smaller as theapex is neared. There may be as many levels between Level 1 QA 60 andtop level QA 70 as desired. At the apex, top level QA 70 represents thehighest level of transcript quality assurance, such as that possessed bythe most skilled transcriptionists or correctionists. Transcripts thathave reached top level QA 70 are provided to the organization(s) thatprovided the original voice files. It is contemplated that the top levelQA 70 may represent the QA department of the organization that providedthe original voice file(s).

The database 17 stores workflow rules, voice files or transcriptsthereof, and characteristics of transcriptionists or correctionists. Theworkflow rules define the levels of quality assurance, a confidencefactor range associated with each level of quality assurance, andsubsets of metadata. The subsets of metadata defined by the workflowrules may include, without limitation, a voice file's creator, thecreator's organization or any suborganization thereof, a creation date,a subject of the voice file or transcript, a type of voice file ortranscript, an identity of the transcriptionist who transcribed thetranscript, an identity of any correctionist who corrected on thetranscript, a confidence factor assigned to any transcriptionist orcorrectionist who operated on the transcript, a QA level correspondingto the transcriptionist's or correctionist's confidence factor, or adate on which the transcript was transcribed or corrected.

The workflow rules also determine the percentage of transcripts in eachlevel that will receive further QA checking at a higher level. Forexample, the workflow rules may be configured such that 25% of thetranscripts for organization A stored on the database 17 that werechecked by correctionists having a QA level of 2 will be selected forfurther checking at QA level 3. Or, for example, the workflow rules maybe configured such that 5% of the transcripts for organization B storedon the database 17 that created by transcriptionists having a QA levelof 3 will be selected for further checking at QA level 4. The workflowrules may also determine a percentage of files having a certain subsetof metadata other than the QA level of the transcriptionist orcorrectionist that will receive further QA checking at a higher level.For example, the workflow rules may be configured such that 3% of thetranscripts of psychiatric reports stored on the database 17 will beselected for further checking at a higher QA level. Optionally, theworkflow rules may specify that the selection of transcripts for higherlevel checking will be done at random from within a group of transcriptsup to the number corresponding to the percentage.

All of the workflow rules stored on the database 17 may be configured tosuit the needs of the person or organization providing voice files fortranscription or correction. For example, Franklin Hospital may definethe confidence factor range for QA level 2 to be between 51 and 80inclusive and that 15% of the QA level 2 transcripts will receivefurther checking, whereas Grant Hospital may define QA level 2 to bebetween 41 and 60 inclusive and that 25% of the QA level 2 transcriptswill receive further checking. As discussed above, voice files from theproviding organization or person are stored on the database 17. Thevoice files have metadata associated with them. The voice file metadatamay include, without limitation, information relating to the voicefile's creator, the creator's organization or any subgroup thereof, thecreation date, the subject of the voice file, or the type of voice file.For example, a voice file resulting from a doctor dictating a medicalreport may have metadata indicating that the doctor dictating the reportwas Dr. Anja Stenstrom of the Ophthalmology department of Grant Hospitaland that the report is a patient medical history of patient DavidBrainard dictated on Mar. 19, 2005.

The database 17 also stores a transcript of any voice file stored on thedatabase 17 if a transcriptionist or speech recognition software hascreated one. The transcript, like the corresponding voice file, hasmetadata associated with it. In addition to the voice file metadatalisted above, the transcript metadata may include, without limitation, atype of transcript, a subject of the transcript, the identity of thetranscriptionist or any correctionist who operated on the transcript, aconfidence factor assigned to the transcriptionist or correctionist, orthe date on which the transcript was transcribed or corrected.

The database 17 further stores characteristic data for transcriptionistsor correctionists. The characteristics of transcriptionists orcorrectionists may include, without limitation, a correctionist'squality assurance level, a confidence factor to be associated with atranscriptionist's or correctionist's output, a set of organizations orsubgroups thereof on whose voice files or corresponding transcripts thetranscriptionist or correctionist is permitted to operate, or a set ofvoice file or transcript types on which the transcriptionist orcorrectionist is permitted to operate. For example, characteristic datafor a correctionist may state that he/she performs QA work on Level 1transcripts, has a confidence factor of 0, may only operate ontranscripts for a hospital's neurological department, and may onlyoperate on transcripts dealing with patient medical histories.Optionally, the multi level quality checking method may include aprocess for facilitating transcription of voice files stored on thedatabase 17 prior to commencing a process for facilitating correction oftranscripts stored on the database 17. The computer code mechanismwithin the computer 15 begins a transcription facilitation process byreading and identifying subsets of metadata associated with voice filesstored on the database 17. The subsets of metadata are defined by theworkflow rules stored on the database 17. The defined subsets ofmetadata may include, without limitation, a voice file's creator, anorganization to which the creator belongs or any suborganizationthereof, a creation date, a subject of the voice file, or a type ofvoice file. For example, the subsets of metadata associated with a voicefile V read by the computer code mechanism may indicate that V is adischarge report for patient Dora Goldberg dictated by Dr. Maria Ramirezof the Cardiology department of St. Luke's Medical Center on Jul. 9,2005.

The computer code mechanism searches transcriptionist characteristicsstored on the database 17 and identifies a group of propertranscriptionists to transcribe the voice files by matchingtranscriptionists having the proper transcriptionist characteristics totranscribe voice files with a particular subset of metadata with theidentified subsets of metadata. The computer code mechanism then selectstranscriptionists from the identified group. For example, the computercode mechanism reading the metadata associated with voice file Udetermines, based on the defined subsets of metadata stored on thedatabase 17, that U is a discharge report. The computer code mechanismwill then search the transcriptionist characteristics stored on database17, identify a group of available transcriptionists with permission totranscribe voice files of discharge reports, and select atranscriptionist from the identified group to transcribe U.

Transcriptionists log on to the system 10 through a web-based trans-netclient 25 that communicates with the database 17 within the computer 15via an internet connection 20. Upon login, assignments are madeavailable to transcriptionists through the web-based trans-net client25. For example, when transcriptionist T logs in to the system 10through the web-based trans-net client 25, the computer code mechanismwill provide to T only voice files of cardiology reports andpost-operative reports because T's characteristics permit him totranscribe only those types of voice files.

When the transcriptionist has completed transcription of the voice file,the resultant transcript of the voice file is stored on the database 17.The computer code mechanism writes into the transcript new transcriptmetadata pertaining to the transcriptionist's characteristics. The newsubsets of the transcript's metadata written by the computer codemechanism are defined in the workflow rules stored on database 17 andmay include, without limitation, all of the metadata subsets present invoice files, as well as the subject of the transcript, the type oftranscript, the identity of a transcriptionist, a confidence factorassigned to the transcriptionist, a QA level corresponding to thetranscriptionist's confidence factor, or the date on which thetranscript was transcribed. For example, the subsets of transcriptmetadata of transcript R identified by the computer code mechanism mayindicate that R is the transcript of an autopsy report for cancer victimGeorge Gonzales dictated by Dr. Howard Meier of the Pathology departmentof St. Jude's Medical Center on May 2, 2005 and that it was transcribedby Padma Rao, who has a confidence factor of 75 that corresponds to QAlevel 3, on May 3, 2005. Or, for example, the subsets of transcriptmetadata of transcript Y identified by the computer code mechanism mayindicate that Y is the transcript of a discharge report for heartpatient Victor Reynolds dictated by Dr. Jane Nguyen of the Cardiologydepartment of Northwestern Memorial Hospital on Oct. 1, 2005 and that itwas transcribed by speech recognition software.

The computer code mechanism commences a process for facilitatingcorrection of transcripts stored on the database 17. The computer codemechanism reads subsets of metadata associated with the transcripts andidentifies subsets of the transcripts' metadata. The subsets of thetranscripts' metadata identified by the computer code mechanism aredefined in the workflow rules stored on database 17 and may include,without limitation, all of the metadata subsets present in voice files,as well as a subject of the transcript, a type of transcript, anidentity of the transcriptionist, a confidence factor assigned to thetranscriptionist, a QA level corresponding to the transcriptionist'sconfidence factor, a date on which the transcript was transcribed, anidentity of any correctionist who corrected the transcript, a confidencefactor assigned to the correctionist, a QA level corresponding to thecorrectionist's confidence factor, or any date on which anycorrectionist corrected the transcript. The computer code mechanism thenidentifies a group of transcripts having one or more desired subset(s)of metadata for correction. For example, if it is desired by theproviding organization that transcripts in QA level 2 should undergoquality checking, the computer code mechanism will identify the group oftranscripts in QA level 2 by searching the metadata associated with alltranscripts residing on the database 17. Or, in another example, if itis desired by the providing organization that transcripts of dischargerecords should undergo quality checking, the computer code mechanismwill identify the group of transcripts of discharge records by searchingthe metadata associated with all transcripts residing on the database17. Or, in still another example, if it is desired by the providingorganization that transcripts of autopsy reports in QA level 3 shouldundergo quality checking, the computer code mechanism will identify thegroup of transcripts of autopsy records in QA level 3 by searching themetadata associated with all transcripts residing on the database 17.

The computer code mechanism references the workflow rules stored on thedatabase 17 to determine the predetermined percentage of transcripts inthe appropriate QA level that will be provided to correctionists forfurther checking. For example, a confidence level of 75 may indicatethat a transcript is in QA level 2 and that 20% of the transcripts in QAlevel 2 will undergo further checking by higher level correctionists.The computer code mechanism may also reference the workflow rules storedin the database 17 to determine what percentage, if any, of transcriptswith any other particular subset of metadata will be made available forcorrectionists. For example, the workflow rules may instruct thecomputer code mechanism to select 3% of all psychiatric reports forMorton Hospital stored on the database 17 and provide them tocorrectionists. The computer code mechanism selects for correction anumber of transcripts having a particular QA level or other particularsubset of metadata corresponding to the predetermined percentage set bythe workflow rules. Those transcripts having a particular QA level or aparticular subset of metadata identified by the computer code mechanismbut not selected for correction in this step are elevated to top levelQA 70. For example, if the workflow rules indicate that 20% of thetranscripts for Can Hospital that have received Level 2 checking are toreceive further checking at Level 3 and 50 transcripts on the databasequalify, the computer code mechanism will select 10 of those transcriptsfor further correction at Level 3; the remaining 40 transcripts will beplaced in top level QA 70. Optionally, it is contemplated that thisselection may be done at random from among the qualifying transcripts.

The computer code mechanism then searches the correctionistcharacteristics stored on the database 17 and identifies a group ofproper correctionists to correct the transcripts by matchingcorrectionists having the proper transcriptionist characteristics tocorrect transcripts with a particular subset of metadata with theidentified subsets of metadata. For example, the computer code mechanismreading the metadata associated with transcript D determines, based onthe defined subsets of metadata stored on the database 17, that D is aQA level 2 discharge report. The computer code mechanism will thensearch the correctionist characteristics stored on database 17 foravailable QA level 2 correctionists with permission to correcttranscripts of discharge reports and identify a group of availablecorrectionists having the proper characteristics to correct D. If atranscript has no associated metadata, the computer code mechanism willprovide the transcript to QA level 1 correctionists.

The computer code mechanism then selects correctionists from theidentified group and provides the selected transcripts along with theircorresponding voice files to the selected correctionists. For example,if the workflow rules instruct that 10% of the transcripts in QA level 2for Hutchinson Medical Center will undergo further checking, thecomputer code mechanism will select 10% of the transcripts in QA level 2for Hutchinson Medical Center on the database, identify a group ofcorrectionists in QA level 2, and assign the selected transcripts to thegroup of selected correctionists. Optionally, the selection ofcorrectionists from among the group of proper correctionists may be doneat random.

Correctionists log on to the system 10 through a web-based QA client 30that communicates with the database 17 within the computer 15 via aninternet connection 20. Upon login, the computer code mechanism makesthe selected transcripts available to the selected correctionists viathe web-based QA client 30. For example, when correctionist C logs in tothe system 10 through the web-based QA client 30, the computer codemechanism selects and assigns only QA level 1 transcripts of patientmedical histories to C because C's characteristics stored on thedatabase 17 permit her to transcribe only QA level 1 transcripts ofpatient medical histories. The computer code mechanism provides both theassigned transcripts and the voice files from which the transcriptsderive to the correctionists over the internet connection 20 through theweb-based QA client 30.

Following correction, the corrected transcript is stored on the database17. The computer code mechanism writes into the transcript file newsubsets of transcript metadata pertaining to the correctionist'scharacteristics. The new subsets of the transcript's metadata written bythe computer code mechanism are defined in the workflow rules stored ondatabase 17 and may include, without limitation, all of the metadatasubsets present in voice files, as well as the subject of thetranscript, the type of transcript, the identity of thetranscriptionist, a confidence factor assigned to the transcriptionist,a QA level corresponding to the transcriptionist's confidence factor,the date on which the transcript was transcribed, the identity of thecorrectionist, a confidence factor assigned to the correctionist, a QAlevel corresponding to the correctionist's confidence factor, and thedate on which the transcript was corrected. For example, the subsets oftranscript metadata of transcript N written by the computer codemechanism may indicate that N is the transcript of a discharge reportfor patient Helen Hathaway dictated by Dr. Yu Ming of the Cardiologydepartment of Northwestern Memorial Hospital on Jun. 10, 2005, that itwas transcribed by Daniel Taylor, who has a confidence factor of 50 thatcorresponds to QA level 2, on Jun. 11, 2005, and that it was correctedby Silvia Cruz, who has a confidence factor of 95 that corresponds totop-level QA, on Jun. 12, 2005.

Eventually, every transcript will attain the top QA level 70. Once atranscript reaches the top QA level 70, the computer code mechanism mayupload the transcript to the providing organization or person. It isenvisioned that the top QA level 70 may represent the providingorganization's in-house QA department.

It is therefore seen that through the implementation of a multi leveltranscript quality checking method on a computer system with an optionalmethod of facilitating the transcription of voice files prior toimplementation of the multi level transcription method, the presentinvention allows for high accuracy quality checking of transcripts atreduced cost, thereby accomplishing at least all of the statedobjectives.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method of multi level quality checking of transcripts of voice files comprising steps of: searching, via at least one computer system, metadata associated with said transcripts of voice files, wherein the metadata for each transcript comprises an indication of a confidence associated with a transcriptionist who prepared that transcript; using the metadata associated with said transcripts, identifying, via the at least one computer system, a group of transcripts having a particular quality assurance level; selecting, via the at least one computer system, a subset of said group of identified transcripts to be corrected; identifying, via the at least one computer system, a group of correctionists having a proper set of characteristics to correct said selected subset of transcripts; providing, via the at least one computer system, said subset of transcripts and any voice files from which the subset of transcripts derive to correctionists within said group of correctionists; and following correction, updating, via the at least one computer system, metadata associated with said subset of transcripts to include metadata pertaining to said voice files from which said transcripts were derived, any transcriptionist who transcribed the transcripts, and/or any said correctionist who corrected said transcripts.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein said metadata associated with said subset of transcripts comprise an identity of a creator of said voice file from which said transcript derives, a creation date for said voice file from which said transcript derives, an identity of an organization for which said transcript was created or a suborganization thereof, a type of transcript, a subject of the transcript, an identity of said transcriptionist who transcribed said voice file from which said transcript derives, an identity of any said correctionist who corrected said transcript, a quality assurance level associated with said transcript, a confidence factor associated with said transcriptionist or correctionist, and/or a transcription or correction date.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the characteristics of said correctionists comprise a confidence factor to be associated with said correctionist, a quality assurance level corresponding to said correctionist's confidence factor, a set of organizations or suborganizations thereof on whose transcripts said correctionist is permitted to operate, and/or a set of transcript types on which said correctionist is permitted to operate.
 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of facilitating transcription of said voice files prior to the correction of said transcripts of said voice files, the step of facilitating transcription of said voice files further comprising the steps of: identifying voice file metadata associated with said voice files; identifying a group of said voice files having at least one particular subset of voice file metadata; identifying a group of said transcriptionists having a proper set of characteristics to transcribe said identified group of voice files by matching said at least one particular subset of voice file metadata associated with said voice files with characteristics of said transcriptionists; and providing said group of voice files to transcriptionists within the group of transcriptionists.
 5. The method of claim 4, wherein said voice file metadata associated with said voice files comprise an identity of a voice file's creator, an identity of an organization for which the voice file was created or a suborganization thereof, a type of voice file, a subject of the voice file, and/or a creation date.
 6. The method of claim 4, wherein said voice files are provided at random to transcriptionists within the group of transcriptionists.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the characteristics of said correctionists comprise a confidence factor to be associated with said correctionists, a quality assurance level corresponding to said correctionist's confidence factor, a set of organizations or suborganizations thereof on whose said transcripts said correctionists is permitted to operate, and/or a set of transcript types on which said correctionists is permitted to operate.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the subset of transcripts is selected at random based on a predetermined percentage.
 9. The method of claim 1, wherein said transcripts are provided at random to said correctionists within the group of correctionists.
 10. The method of claim 1, wherein any transcripts in the group of said identified transcripts that are not selected for correction are promoted to a top-level quality assurance level.
 11. A multi level quality checking computer system for checking the accuracy of transcripts of voice files comprising: a computer with a computer storage medium configured with instructions to cause the computer to identify a subset of metadata associated with a subset of the transcripts of voice files, the subset of the transcripts of voice files having a particular quality assurance level indicative of a confidence associated with one or more transcriptionists who prepared the transcripts and the subset of metadata comprising metadata indicative of the particular quality assurance level, and select correctionists to operate on a predetermined percentage of the transcripts in the subset of the transcripts, the predetermined percentage being less than 100%, based on metadata workflow rules; a database, in electronic communication with said computer, storing said transcripts of said voice files, characteristics of said correctionists, and said workflow rules; and a web-based quality assurance client operable to allow said correctionists, via an internet connection, to access said transcripts for correction.
 12. The system of claim 11, wherein the computer storage medium is further configured to cause the computer to identify subsets of voice file metadata associated with voice files, select transcriptionists to operate on the voice files based on voice file metadata workflow rules, and to provide said voice files to the transcriptionists, and wherein the database further stores said voice files, characteristics of said transcriptionists, and said voice file metadata workflow rules, and wherein the system further comprises a web-based trans-net client operable to allow said transcriptionists to access, via said internet connection, said voice files stored on said database for transcription.
 13. The system of claim 11, wherein said subsets of metadata associated with said transcripts comprise an identity of an organization for which a transcript was created or a suborganization thereof, a type of transcript, a subject of a transcript, an identity of a correctionist who corrected a transcript, a confidence factor associated with the correctionist, a quality assurance level corresponding to the confidence factor, and/or a correction date.
 14. The system of claim 11, wherein the characteristics of said correctionists comprise a confidence factor to be associated with a correctionist, a quality assurance level corresponding to said correctionist's confidence factor, a set of organizations or subgroups thereof on whose transcripts said correctionist is permitted to operate, and/or a set of transcript types on which said correctionist is permitted to operate.
 15. The system of claim 11, wherein said metadata comprises data unrelated to a substance of the transcripts. 